On December 6, the U.S. House passed HR 4, the bill to update the pre-clearance part of the Voting Rights Act. In 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the old pre-clearance rules were so out-of-date, they could not be enforced.
If there were at least 15 instances in a single state when a local government had committed a voting rights violation in the last 25 years, then that state would be subject to having its election law changes pre-cleared by the U.S. Justice Department. Or if the state itself had committed a voting rights violation, and there were also nine or more instances when a local government in that same state had also done so, all in the last 25 years, then that state would also be under pre-clearance.
All Democrats in the U.S. House voted for HR 4, but only one Republican, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voted for it. The lone independent voted against the bill. Here is a description of the bill.
The old Voting Rights Act was not very helpful against restrictive ballot access laws. Generally when a state that was under pre-clearance made its ballot access laws more severe, the federal Justice Department approved the changes. The Justice Department did stop Mississippi from increasing its statewide independent petition in 1966 from 1,000 signatures to 10,000 signatures. Also when Alabama in 1982 increased the vote test for a party to stay on the ballot from zero votes to 20%, the Justice Department stopped Alabama from enforcing the new law for the 1982 election.
1965 VRA = one more subversion of 15 Amdt which is ONLY about about positive/negative definition of Elector — NOT — NOT — NOT about election *** results ***.
2019 machinations — more of the same.
Congress is too evil stupid beyond belief — unable to have DEATH penalties / life in jail / zillion dollar fines —
for VIOLATIONS of Const RIGHTS — so it plays MORON games with UNCON stuff like feel good pre-clearance machinations.
NOOOO pre-clearance stuff on original 1787 Const [it was brought up).
Enforcement of 13-14-15 etc Amdts same — NOOOO pre-clearance stuff.
Courts are also/same brain dead about NOT having automatic redo of UNCON elections — at the expense of the HACKS involved — ie to bankrupt them even more.
Layers and layers of EVIL MORONS in Devil City — esp the SCOTUS HACKS.
What jurisdictions would be subject to preclearance if this law is passed?
It would depend on future behavior, so that is unknown at this time.
@Richard: I would have thought that the law would be based on a rolling 25-year period, so when it started it would cover states with multiple violations over the 1994-2019 period (or more likely 1995-2020 by the time the bill gets through Congress). Or are they giving all the states a fresh start and saying that prior violations don’t count toward the 10 or 15 violations?
https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/hrpt317/CRPT-116hrpt317.pdf
H REPORT ON HR 4
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4/all-actions?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR4%22%5D%7D&s=2&r=1&overview=closed#tabs
ACTIONS ON BILL — DEC 2019 ROBOTIC STUFF
ONE MORE DOA BILL IN ELEPHANT SENATE ??? DUH.
Students —
See 1870 Enforcement Act [of new 15th Amdt] – gutted in 1890s by olde racist Donkeys.
1965 VRA by new RED communist Donkeys — after getting LBJ and Vietnam WAR in 1964.
Various 1965 VRA SCOTUS MORON ops —
matching SCOTUS MORON ops about ballot access and gerrymanders.
Whole legal subjects — perverted by the SCOTUS party HACKS — that is what they do — being the HACKS that they are.
@JK,
IIUC,
It would look back 25 years. If any jurisdiction failed it would be subject to pre-clearance for 10 years. The test would be made every year. A state that was subject to pre-clearance would likely be permanently subject to pre-clearance since interposed objections would count as violations.
@Jim: That sounds like what I thought it would be. My question is, has anyone put out a state-by-state list to show how many violations each state has over the last 25 years, so we can see what jurisdictions will be subject to preclearance?